Fascism

[[email protected]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

On Dec 31, 2:26 pm, wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt

Happy 1984, Jobst!

[that before Sornson starts urinating on your leg for your post ;-)]

May the new year find you healthy, happy, and clocking beautiful
miles, both here and abroad.

[[email protected]]

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
------------------------------
January 2, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors
Stonewalled by the C.I.A. By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON

Washington

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11
commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the
fullest possible account of the "facts and circumstances relating to
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" — and to offer
recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation,
the president's chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies
to cooperate with the commission.

The commission's mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the
intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A.
destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to
conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for
information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those
videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our
investigation. rg

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the
C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission's interest in any
and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11
plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of
the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.

When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the
C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least
two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that
we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have
been contained in such videotapes.

The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees
were treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of
Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all
reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had
been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals,
including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior
Qaeda operatives, portions of whose interrogations were apparently
recorded and then destroyed.

The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the
interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as
they answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific
questions, they would do all they could to answer them.

So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.'s
general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the
reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more
important in our view, asked for details about the translation process
in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way
the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees' stories;
the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported
information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of
questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the
credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported
statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators
themselves.

The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies.
The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been
recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any
form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to
question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few
other key captives.

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A.
director, told us point blank that we would have no such access.
During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should
provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the
commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by
alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but
neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel,
the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice
Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the
detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some
of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission
concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the
commission never felt that its earlier questions had been
satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our
concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission
report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.'s failure
to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What
we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a
lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to
investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We
call that obstruction.

Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice
chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
--
Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

That's cool.

We haven't had a good old-fashioned whitewash around here in a long
time.

[Ron Wallenfang]

On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> Jobst Brandt

FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts

[[email protected]]

Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4

> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts

Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?

Jobst Brandt

[Ron Wallenfang]

On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not only
> that, don't go to a web site that will give you information you don't
> want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur did you?
>
> Jobst Brandt

I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
degree.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 4, 10:55*pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2007, 4:26 pm, wrote:
> >> Jobst Brandt
> > FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
>
> Wait till someone posts a /ride report/ and draws his ire! *LOL
>
> Bill "but at least he labeled it 'OT'...oh, wait" S.

Brandt can do as he pleases; after all, he owns the rec.bicycles.**
groups and graciously lets others use them. Right?

[Jym Dyer]

> ... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...

=v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
idiotic FUD about them.
HTH,
<_Jym_>

[[email protected]]

Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4

>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts

>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
>> did you?

> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> degree.

OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
as emulating Lance Armstrong.

Jobst Brandt

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 6, 9:16*am, wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. *Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. *You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. *IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. *There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
>

Why don't you just stick to telling folks to overtension their spokes?

[Ron Wallenfang]

On Jan 6, 9:16 am, wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> >> did you?
> > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > degree.
>
> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> Jobst Brandt

There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
you either.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 11:34 am, Ron Wallenfang > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:16 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Wallenfang writes:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4
>
> > >>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts
> > >> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
> > >> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
> > >> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new derailleur
> > >> did you?
> > > I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
> > > rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
> > > degree.
>
> > OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the like
> > and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> > spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see themselves
> > as emulating Lance Armstrong.
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.

Provide people stick to the convention of using "OT:" to preface the
subject of an off-topic post, couldn't you simply filter out those
posts??

That's likely to be more effective, IMO.

[[email protected]]

Ron Wallenfang writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuWCIYi7T4

>>>>> FWIW, Jobst, I prefer your trip reports to your political posts

>>>> Don't read political posts and you won't have that problem. Not
>>>> only that, don't go to a web site that will give you information
>>>> you don't want. You didn't think that Fascism was a new
>>>> derailleur did you?

>>> I suppose the M15 guy could say the same thing. IMHO, posts to
>>> rec.bicycles should bear on bicycles, at least to some reasonable
>>> degree.

>> OK, then read about heat pumps, windmills, trolleybuses and the
>> like and stop complaining. There is more to life than carbon fiber
>> and low spoke-count wheels discussed by Walter Mitty types who see
>> themselves as emulating Lance Armstrong.

> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But
> rec.bicycles isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and
> shouldn't be for you either.

So how is it that giving a link to a current political topic gets you
excited while all sorts of non bicycle items do not? As I said,
trolleys, heat pumps, windmills, wheelchairs and the like don't get
your critical comments. It appears that you are eager to let readers
of this newsgroup know where your politics lie rather than make a
specific complaint.

Jobst Brandt

[Stephen Harding]

Ron Wallenfang wrote:

> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be more to
> rec.bicycles than biking. A good many other participants in these
> newsgroups happen to have political opinions that range all over the
> spectrum. And a good many of that good many even think their views
> are correct, if only everyone would listen to them. But rec.bicycles
> isn't a soapbox for each of us to talk politics and shouldn't be for
> you either.

Politics unfortunately, increasingly, infiltrates all endeavors.
Rather nasty politics of the personal attack kind seem to be a
large part of it as well.

Perhaps with President Obama or Hillary things will lessen up a
bit. There will still be the right wing ideologues doing their
attack repertories, but I think there are fewer of them (at
least on this NG) than the Lefties.

Jobst is a good poster AFA bicycling topics go. He has a lot
of credibility to me. On political topics, I regard him as a
kook!

You also have a lot of credibility to my mind. You don't just
talk the bicycling life style, you act it out. How many bike
miles last year? 20K???!!!

And you're not a Lefty Kook (tm) as far as I can tell. Or
perhaps you are a Lefty Kook that just doesn't feel politics
belong in this NG.

Whatever. I'm glad you stop in from time to time!


SMH

[Jym Dyer]

>> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
>> idiotic FUD about them.
> So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
> are reporting serious issues are just...liars?

=v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
of technological advances over those, but some people just
lump them together and spread FUD.
<_Jym_>

[John Kane]

On Jan 7, 2:15 pm, Jym Dyer > wrote:
> >> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
> >> idiotic FUD about them.
> > So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who
> > are reporting serious issues are just...liars?
>
> =v= These issues are well-known and longstanding complaints
> about old-technology fluorescents. CFLs represent a number
> of technological advances over those, but some people just
> lump them together and spread FUD.
> <_Jym_>

I'd want to see some good studies but from personal experience the old
florescent lights in the 1970's univerity library used to give me eye-
strain. Now I use the nep CFLs for my reading light with no problem at
all.

Migraines are so strange that who knows what might set them off.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 5:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Let the free market decide, so that
> people who need or (gasp) merely prefer standard bulbs can still buy them.
> (And I use CFLs, by the way, mainly for economy.)
>
> Bill "pro choice" S.

"Pro choice" and "let the market decide" are both overly simplistic.
Taken to extremes, those principles would allow things like no
mufflers at all on kids' performance cars. 24-hour-operation
foundries inserted into residential neighborhoods. Total lack of
pollution controls on cars. Car stereos loud enough to be heard two
miles away.

Some things need to be regulated. Whether that includes light bulb
technology remains to be settled, but the rationale is not
outrageous.

Look at it this way: If we reduce our energy requirements enough, we
may be able to spend less to defend Arabian dictatorships, and your
taxes will be reduced.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Jym Dyer wrote:
> {I wrote, in part and in missing context:}
>
>>> ... they'll be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use ...
>
>> =v= Use CFLs and LEDs and stop believing the
>> idiotic FUD about them.
>
> So people who suffer from migraines and eye problems who are reporting
> serious issues are just...liars?

My frequency of migraine headaches decreased significantly when my CRT
monitor at work was replaced with a LCD monitor.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> ...There is more to life than carbon fiber and low
> spoke-count wheels...

Steel frame recumbents with 36-spoke wheels! (Only have five myself).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> ...
> There is more to life than biking but there shouldn't be...

This is where that sentence should have stopped. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." A. Derleth

[Jym Dyer]

> You may well be correct, but I just yesterday heard a news story about the
> CFLs causing problems for sensitive people -- including epileptics (forgot
> to mention them previously).

=v= UPI story. Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new
CFLs.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

>> Made no distinction between old fluorescents and new CFLs.
> Maybe because there isn't any.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/
compact-fluorescent-lightbulb-migraines-47010709

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/
green-light-bulbs-give-you-cancer-and-other-tall-stories-20080108

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/January/07010803.asp

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the FREE
> MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer incandescent bulbs
> can still get them as long as the demand justifies their continued
> availability.

What about those poor people who are sensitive to electromagnetic
fields and want to light their homes with gas? The bad old city
inspectors in most places won't let them do that!

I don't see what's the big deal. The government sets a limit on how
little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting? Or to turn it around,
do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and that
builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?

Chalo

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > The government sets a limit on how
> > little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> > construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> > minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?
>
> So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine headaches! Got
> it.

CFLs don't flicker like TVs and old-style fluorescents do.

I know people who swear they get sick from entering a store that
contains wheat products. Others who can only wear and sleep on
organically grown unbleached natural fibers. Still others who believe
they can become sick from someone _else_ on the same airplane eating
peanuts.

I think they all need to find some real problems to devote their
attention to.

> > Or to turn it around,
> > do you also think that minimum insulation standards are wrong and that
> > builders should be able to construct houses with no insulation?
>
> Not much danger of too lax building standards or regulations any time soon,
> but also of course no one would buy those crappy houses.

The hell! Lots of folks will spend $100 in the long run to save a
dollar today. (Including the overwhelming majority of people who
still use incandescent bulbs.)

> Latest I heard was the government and/or utility company some day being able
> to control how much juice comes in your home. Want it 65 in the summer?
> Forget it; governor will limit you to, say, 75. Want it 75 in winter?
> Sorry, bub, 65 is as warm as you're allowed.

If it means getting along without resource wars like our currently
unfolding disaster, then it's a deal.

Chalo

[Jym Dyer]

> ... you really don't seem to grasp points very well.

=v= Well, so much for reading for comprehension.
The points in question were, in fact, addressed.
<_Jym_>

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Chalo wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The government sets a limit on how
> >>> little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> >>> construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> >>> minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?
> >>
> >> So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine
> >> headaches! Got it.
> >
> > CFLs don't flicker like TVs and old-style fluorescents do.
>
> So the people who are reporting issues with them are just liars? (Been here
> before in this thread.)

You don't have to take my word for it; check for yourself. You can
silhouette your hand against a TV screen or an old-style fluorescent
light (or a light colored wall illuminated by one of those things),
and when you wave it around you'll see a choppy tracer from the
rapidly pulsing light. Try it with a CFL. Unless the thing is in the
process of burning out its electronic ballast, there will be no
variation at all in the light's intensity.

If folks are going to attribute their afflictions to CFLs, they need
to identify something about CFLs that is contributing to their
problems. It ain't flicker.

> > I know people who swear they get sick from entering a store that
> > contains wheat products. Others who can only wear and sleep on
> > organically grown unbleached natural fibers. Still others who believe
> > they can become sick from someone _else_ on the same airplane eating
> > peanuts.
>
> > I think they all need to find some real problems to devote their
> > attention to.
>
> Like saying they suffer from a neighbor down the street smoking in his or
> her house. Got it.

Right, just like that. Anyone who'll get their knickers in a twist
about somebody else smoking on other premises-- when everyone they
know drives a stinking smogger everywhere they go-- must have a
terrible backache from the contortion.

Chalo

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 3:59 pm, wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:39 pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
>
> > Let the free market decide, so that
> > people who need or (gasp) merely prefer standard bulbs can still buy them.
> > (And I use CFLs, by the way, mainly for economy.)
>
> > Bill "pro choice" S.
>
> "Pro choice" and "let the market decide" are both overly simplistic.
> Taken to extremes, those principles would allow things like no
> mufflers at all on kids' performance cars. 24-hour-operation
> foundries inserted into residential neighborhoods. Total lack of
> pollution controls on cars. Car stereos loud enough to be heard two
> miles away.
>
> Some things need to be regulated. Whether that includes light bulb
> technology remains to be settled, but the rationale is not
> outrageous.
>
> Look at it this way: If we reduce our energy requirements enough, we
> may be able to spend less to defend Arabian dictatorships, and your
> taxes will be reduced.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

The Free Market: it's like letting your children raise themselves.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 11:56 pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> I'll say it one last time (you keep deleting it): why not let the
> >> FREE MARKET decide, so that people who need or merely prefer
> >> incandescent bulbs can still get them as long as the demand
> >> justifies their continued availability.
>
> > What about those poor people who are sensitive to electromagnetic
> > fields and want to light their homes with gas? The bad old city
> > inspectors in most places won't let them do that!
> > I don't see what's the big deal. The government sets a limit on how
> > little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> > construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> > minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?
>
> So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine headaches! Got
> it.

Smart people don't manage to the exception. They find solutions for
those exceptions once the right decision for the majority is
implemented.

As in: lampshades and dimmers.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 8:32 am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> >> Chalo wrote:
>
> >>> The government sets a limit on how
> >>> little insulation you are allowed to have in the walls of new
> >>> construction. In that context, why shouldn't they weigh in on the
> >>> minimum allowable efficiency of your lighting?
>
> >> So screw those poor saps with epileptic seizures or migraine
> >> headaches! Got it.

Smart people don't manage to the exception. They do what's right for
the principle/business/situation, and then find solutions that resolve
the issue for the exception.

Like: lampshades and dimmers.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 4:45 pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
>
>
> Hint: I never said it was visible or even discernable flicker. I have a
> friend who's prone to migraines, and he said that sitting in the barber's
> chair under CFLs gave him a bad headache. Others are reporting similar
> issues.

Hmm. Sounds like the sum total of data is 1) your friend, and 2)
stuff you've heard. I'd like some evidence the "problem" is real, not
imaginary and not hearsay.

FWIW, if your friend gets migraines from CFLs and other flourescents,
he must be having them very, very frequently. I've noted that almost
all stores in my area are lit with one or the other. So are all the
hotel rooms I've used in the last several months. These companies are
doing this because the economic sense of it is absolutely obvious to
anyone with a working calculator.

While I can easily detect flicker in ordinary flourescents using a
trick similar to Chalo's, I can detect no flicker from the CFLs in our
house, and I've tried. I'm not sure why that is - I'd have expected
them to be driven at 60 Hz, but apparently they're not. It's possible,
I suppose, that some brands flicker and others do not.

> You suggest that it's just their imaginations; I say why FORCE them to use
> bulbs in their homes that they don't want and perhaps are making them ill.

So we can take steps toward avoiding another energy war. I've had one
nephew sent to that big sandbox, and I have one close friend still
stationed there. I know you feel no need to inconvenience yourself
over this war you love, but I feel differently.

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 3:37 pm, wrote:

> So we can take steps toward avoiding another energy war. I've had one
> nephew sent to that big sandbox, and I have one close friend still
> stationed there. I know you feel no need to inconvenience yourself
> over this war you love, but I feel differently.

Or ... we used to make sacrifices when our nation was at war.

Now we go to war so our nation doesn't have to sacrifice.

:-(

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 9:20 pm, wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:37 pm, wrote:
>
> > So we can take steps toward avoiding another energy war. I've had one
> > nephew sent to that big sandbox, and I have one close friend still
> > stationed there. I know you feel no need to inconvenience yourself
> > over this war you love, but I feel differently.
>
> Or ... we used to make sacrifices when our nation was at war.
>
> Now we go to war so our nation doesn't have to sacrifice.
>
> :-(

Well said.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jym Dyer]

>> I have a friend who's prone to migraines, and he said
>> that sitting in the barber's chair under CFLs gave him
>> a bad headache.
> Sounds like the sum total of data is 1) your friend,
> and 2) stuff you've heard. I'd like some evidence the
> "problem" is real, not imaginary and not hearsay.

=v= This is the classic problem with relying on anecdotes.
Humans live in a multivariate environment, and it could be
one of a dozen other things going there that triggers the
migraine. OR it's psychosomatic. OR it's an oddly-shaped
but old-technology fluorescent light. OR ... I dunno. Like
I said, it's multivariate.

=v= If he wants to determine what's going on he could be part
of a case study. That way he could make a contribution to
what is known and considered medically valid. Just bitching
to a friend who can't discuss these issues without invoking
brain-dead caricatures of Al Gore or otherwise being obnoxious
about it, ain't gonna help anybody.
<_Jym_>

[Paul O]

Bill Sornson wrote:
<snip>
>
> I have no idea who wrote that, and the CONTEXT of what I (also unattributed)
> wrote is missing. Hint: it was simply in answer to Chalo highlighting the
> "flickering" aspect of CFLs.
>
> I'll ask one last time: are the people who are reporting issues (eye
> problems, migraines, epileptic seizures, etc.) with these lights all lying?
> And that's not even mentioning the frigging chemicals in the damned things.
<snip>

I've replaced nearly every bulb in my house with CFL's and I can report
no problems with my eyes, migraines, epileptic seizures, or any other
adverse health effects. I must be imagining my complete lack of
symptoms. ;-)

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 6:44 am, Paul O > wrote:

> I've replaced nearly every bulb in my house with CFL's and I can report
> no problems with my eyes, migraines, epileptic seizures, or any other
> adverse health effects. I must be imagining my complete lack of
> symptoms. ;-)

You could just be lying ;-)

ps: your story matches mine, and I have battled multiple, complex
problems with my eyes for 40 years.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 11:54 am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> Paul O wrote:
> >
> > I've replaced nearly every bulb in my house with CFL's and I can
> > report no problems with my eyes, migraines, epileptic seizures, or
> > any other adverse health effects. I must be imagining my complete
> > lack of symptoms. ;-)
>
> Same here, but then I'm not afflicted with such problems. Luckily, however,
> I *can* read for comprehension.

:-)


If that were true, Bill, you wouldn't still be complaining about
people trimming their responses in a threaded discussion. We've
explained over and over how you can use a threaded newsreader, but you
can't seem to comprehend!

> One final time: are people who say they have problems with CFLs liars? Or
> is it just possible that the bulbs do cause symptoms in some people?

Personally, I believe they are reacting psychosomatically. That's not
the same as lying. But it's possible they are, like you, so opposed
to anything advocated by recent Nobel Prize winners that they do,
indeed, lie.

However, if it's a serious problem for a significant number of people,
I'm sure you'll prove it with hard data. Right? ;-)

> I say let people buy what they want.

Does that include car mufflers so loud they rattle your windows from a
block away? Or is there a chance we should consider the good of
society as well as the freedom to buy what they want?

>
> Sorry this is too complicated for you and others to grasp.
>
> Bill "and then there's the MERCURY..." S.

Aren't Bill's thought processes cute? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 9:24 am, wrote:

> Aren't Bill's thought processes cute? ;-)

The glitter rubs off awfully quickly.....

[Jym Dyer]

> I *can* read for comprehension.
>
> One final time: are people who say they have problems with
> CFLs liars?

=v= If you can read for comprehension, then you already have
your answer. Problem solved.

> Bill "and then there's the MERCURY..." S.

=v= Also answered, at least for those who know how to read.
<_Jym_>

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Moron Bulbs:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/weekinreview/07hamilton.html?_r=1&o...

The author's complaints about color rendering are valid, but only for
the common 2700K color temperature versions. Incandescent bulbs have
their unpleasantly yellow color because of the limitations of their
materials, not because it's a good color for illumination. When there
is any amount of daylight or skylight present to compare to, they look
particularly miserable. Yet most CFLs are designed to mimic that
crappy light, and some of them don't even do a particularly good job
of it.

Just like I refuse to use incandescent lights for illumination in my
house, I refuse to use CFLs that are a similar color. Using CFLs
means not having to tolerate yellow indoor lighting anymore. After
some experimentation, I have settled on 3500K bulbs for my living
areas and 5500K bulbs for work areas. 3500K light is still warm
enough to look like home rather than a commercial setting-- and warm
enough that my wife doesn't care about the difference-- but its color
rendering is worlds better than incandescent-color bulbs. A given
amount of light with 3500K color seems brighter than an equal amount
with 2700K color. It's not just more light for less power compared to
incandescent, it's better light.

And to address another point made in the article-- no, they don't
dim. But I only ever dimmed my lights to save energy, and CFLs are
_much_ better for that. If I want less light for some reason, I just
use a smaller bulb. Usually I use the largest bulb I can physically
accommodate in the fixture I want to put it in.

The electrical component of my utility bill comes to less than $20 any
month I don't run the air conditioning. Last month it was $12 for
metered power plus a $6 customer fee.

Chalo

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 6:21 pm, Chalo > wrote:

> And to address another point made in the article-- no, they don't
> dim. But I only ever dimmed my lights to save energy, and CFLs are
> _much_ better for that. If I want less light for some reason, I just
> use a smaller bulb. Usually I use the largest bulb I can physically
> accommodate in the fixture I want to put it in.

No sarcasm here, but ... /dimmable/ CFL's dim.

I use a pair of them in the overhead bedroom fixture ... in one of the
warmer temperature varieties. When dimmed, they give quite a nice
warm glow, without any humming, flickering, or noise whatsoever.

Most lighting stores/big-box home improvement stores DO carry dimmable
compact fluorescents. You just have to ask.

Here's a start:

http://www.thegreenguide.com/blog/freshfinds/340

[Chalo]

wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > And to address another point made in the article-- no, they don't
> > dim. But I only ever dimmed my lights to save energy, and CFLs are
> > _much_ better for that. If I want less light for some reason, I just
> > use a smaller bulb. Usually I use the largest bulb I can physically
> > accommodate in the fixture I want to put it in.
>
> No sarcasm here, but ... /dimmable/ CFL's dim.
>
> I use a pair of them in the overhead bedroom fixture ... in one of the
> warmer temperature varieties. When dimmed, they give quite a nice
> warm glow, without any humming, flickering, or noise whatsoever.

I've had a couple of them, but all the dimmable CFLs I've ever found
were of the yellow 2700K color-- and rather expensive to boot. I used
them in my bedroom, where the color was inoffensive-- but I found that
I hardly ever dimmed them. I have established that for my own use,
improved color temperature is a much more significant benefit than the
ability to operate on a dimmer.

Chalo